tv [untitled] November 21, 2014 7:00pm-7:31pm PST
and could you state for the record. >> if you can see it again, and you understand where i am trying to go with this. and you say it again. >> and do i have to repeat everything? >> and go ahead. >> and let me restate what i am trying to do is to have both sides agree that if there is a minimum amount of existing walls that are proven by the building department in their review. that both sides can accept and therefore, everything else is demolished and so most of your issues go away. >> yes, and most of them go away. >> do you understand that? >> yeah, that is where i am trying to dow with this. >> yeah, they have to do what they promise to do and we see it. >> and they will do what we decide here,, and what the building department says that they will do. okay? >> yeah. >> and all right.
>> planning department and that i think we already stated kind of our analysis and our concerns related to section, 317 on the planning code and the department knows that this is properly before the board for your decision and you are trying to resolve this in a matter that is trying to resolve and address the concerns in the safe and ha bitable building and but i will, let me raise two points because that has also been made as part of the wish list and i am not supportive of getting rid of the set back on the third floor. i think that that is a standard of the bench of the design lines and it reduce its from the street and i would like to keep that. and the other thing is that there are no light wells shown on the existing floor plans for the two adjacent buildings
below the third floor. but, i am confused because one building is only two stories. i think that was correct and there is a discrepancy on the plans, and the floor plans do not show what if any light wells exist on the adjacent building and i think that one of the issues that we had in reviewing this, since keeping the walls would the board like to see the light well extended further down to match. >> would i like to see it match all light wells. >> but i don't need it to go down if there is no light wells. >> but you would like to see it match, all of the existing light wells at all levels? >> yeah. >> okay. >> okay. >> procedural, please? >> yeah, absolutely, commissioner i am not going to argue this, and the only, couple of points that i would just like to ask for the board, is we do have a group of folks on the other side. both due to liability as well
as just simple reasons, we asked that maybe one person from the appellant scene be selected to be a part of that and that that person speak on behalf of the appellants and >> they have two payed agents both of who have been involved in the design work and so one of them can be and that will be communicated to mr. duffy. >> okay. >> and thank you, commissioner, and the only other point that i make is that it sounds like we are doing this inspection and bringing the folks on this site for the very specific purpose. as you have seen in the materials there has been a lot of things brought up. the one thing that i ask is that if we can keep this and obviously, we are going to have to be going out there together and you guys will not be there and so some sort of a directive that the focus of this inspection is to figure out where the old walls are, and figure out how much of those can we get rid of without
tripping the demo permit and that that is kind of the focused issue that we are dealing with out there as opposed to the many concerns that have been brought up over the years. >> you heard my comment on the light well. >> yes. >> and i believe that there is a foundation issue. >> and it needs to be ascertained and that can be a part of this inspection as well. >> yeah. >> thank you commissioners. >> is that clear to all parties? >> okay. and so is there enough for you to make a motion. >> yeah. >> only on the procedural question, and not on the merits of the case. okay? >> mr. duffy is that pretty clear? did you want to have a planner also involved? >> okay. >> i think that scott should do it personally. at this point, we are going to continue the case. >> yes. but do you want to continue it with the expectations or the conditions as to what is happening when i come back.
>> okay, give them the directions, further direction on the record. >> i could help that if you need the help in particular i would love to know when you want this returned and whether you want any additional documents submitted to the board other than revised plans when it comes back. >> mr. duffy indicates that they can do this within a couple of weeks and stow your schedule for the tenth is already looking pretty bad, right? >> yes, but it is not just mr. duffy who needs to do something, it is also the revised plans that need to be prepared. >> is there on to respond to that. and i am sorry, could you ask the question again? >> how long do you need to do the revised plans? >> what is the date being offered right now? >> there has not been one. >> how long. >> no. not long, so we will take the next available hearing. >> what is good for you? >> there is nothing good. it is really up to the board if you want to add to your load.
>> how many do we have on the tenth. >> you have ten new appeals on the tenth and you have eleven matters on the 17th. >> and some of those may leave between now and then and i some of them will take long. >> two weeks. yeah. >> two weeks. >> it is december 10th is that what you are suggesting. >> and december the tenth, is longer than ten weeks, and the next is on december the tenth. and mr. duffy is saying that the 17th would work better for him. >> okay. >> and i am sorry commissioners, it is a lot is going on right now, if i could make one more point of clarification, i am hearing from the architect right now, that taking a light well all the way down to the ground could have the structural. >> i did not say ground floor, i said to match all existing light wells on the side.
>> does it go down. >> and so apparently what i am hearing is that the north side does and all that i am asking is that we don't need to make a decision on this tonight, and that is gives the opportunity to come back and speak to you at the hearing, and you are drawing. and you don't show it. >> and you are drawing and that is part of what we need to work on. >> i am just saying, i am hearing that we have structural and fire egress issues. it is part of the plan and that is expense of whatever it is that you do or don't put in there. >> okay. >> it sounds like okay. >> thanks. >> to the microphone. >> and that stage, and that should have the structural plan ready and the final architectural plan ready and should they furnish that copy to make sure that planning plans. >> we can discuss that next time. and the reason is that this and that will be the addenda package any way. >> i think that it should be and i think that is submitted
already. >> this is going to change it. >> thank you. >> so my understanding is then that this matter the proposal is for this matter to be continued to december 17th. to allow did the bi to inspect the site to determine what elements should be demolished and for revised plans to be submitted reflecting all revisions and for the plans to reflect the light wells that match all light wells on the adjoining property. >> correct. >> okay and that is your motion. >> to continue. >> yes. >> okay. >> and so on this motion to continue this matter to december 17th, excuse me. and no additional briefing is allowed and just the submital of a revised plan and we will allow the testing. >> no additional briefing and only the revised plans to be submitted by the permit holder.
>> one thursday prior to hearing. >> eleven copies to us and one to mr. lou. >> lazarus. >> aye >> honda. >> aye. >> wilson. >> aye. >> thank you. >> this matter is continued and the vote is 4-0 to december 17th. thank you. >> items ten, a, b, and c, are continued to december, and we will call 11 a and b. 14-158, and 14-162, the first filed by smith and the second by miller and mckency, both against the department of building inspection and with the planning department approval and both have to do with 1264-6th avenue and protesting the issuance of the september, could you please, quiet. if you could keep it down. and for testing the issuance on
september 8th, and and a new three story rear ad dish, with the third floor 72 square foot deck. and we will hear from the first appellant and you have seven minutes. >> i am happy to hear my opinions heard, about the proposed project, and i was blocked from speaking at the drhearing, due to a mix up with the dr application itself. and i was listed by the planning department as part of... >> could i stop you for a second. >> yes, sir. >> stop the time. >> is this joint? >> it is two separate appeals. >> okay, so each person.
>> so that means, that we would have had to hold you to the same issue. as the planning commission, if it was a joint appeal. >> okay? >> >> that is okay, you can continue. >> it was not a joint appeal. >> right. >> we understand that. >> i just asking the question. >> he is just clarifying. >> i am sorry having trouble hearing. >> i apologize for stopping. >> you can start again. >> okay. >> i was listed on the dr although i did not sign the application or did i pay anything for the filing and i am also not represented by the attorney, and the architect of my neighbors at 1260, 6th avenue as was related in the other brief from the opposite
side, and they have the, the 1260, 6th avenue, has also filed a separate appeal. and at the br hearing, i was shoved aside and not allowed to speak, so the planning committee did not hear any of my very valid arguments against this huge out of character and very invasive extension to the house at 1264. 6th avenue. and i have also been shoved aside and deceived from the very beginning of this project by the fellow... (inaudible) and in february 2013, andera came to my home to so me the anticipated pro-yekt and i was told by her that the back of the house would be squared off from the current sun room to the current bathroom, which has
a two-foot difference. i was informed that the two feet would be added to the north side and then squared off to the south side. and this would make a four-foot extension on my side. the 1264 house bathroom already extends two feet further than the south wall of my home. then there were the bay windows which were also in addition to the project, and was a solid structure that would extend another two feet out and go from ground floor up to the third floor. so in all in all, the extension would are at least 6 feet on the north, and making this south wall eight feet. and it would completely block my view to the north. and you can see here this is
quiet at the meeting and they didn't know that i had any concerns about the project. i had made my concerns known the first time when andrea came over with the plans and again at the meeting and again i told her that i could not deal with more than a two-foot extension. this was the third time that my concerns were known and ignored and the last verbal communication for the project. >> they told me that they were to meet with them and i asked if i could come. ken asked them and had been told that i could not come, and that they would deal with me separately. i have never been approached by them p i have been excluded.. i have never been contacted by their attorney which was supposed to happen. i have been totally ignored and shoved aside on this matter,
and i was excluded from speaking at the dr hearing and this really is my first day in court. and i hope that you will listen to my concerns. i do not understand the need for such a huge extension that is out of character with the block. all of us who did remodeling have been modest in their scope of projects i enclosed the ground floor under my bathroom, breakfast room and porch which were on stilts, and which is less than layton ground floor area. and made a swimming pool room, a 5-foot wide hallway and a dog washing area. and a full bathroom, which i need so that i don't have to run through the house in a wet swimming suit. they will gain, 400 square feet of usable space, just by enclosing the ground floor open area which is on stilts and squaring off the sun room to
the south property line, and they were together that the leighton have no intention of creating an inlaw unit and however the most recent plans reveal a full bathroom and a lawnedsry room and a separate entry from the garage and this looks suspicious of an inlaw unit in the making. >> the third floor extension to the proposed project would have a deck that would look directly down in to my bathroom. and this is from their plan drawing. this is my bathroom. and my bathroom is 8 feet wide and there is a breakfast room, that extends across and then directly into my laundry room. and i just feel that my privacy
will be totally invaded. >> excuse me but your time is up. >> okay. >> we can hear from the other appellant now. mr. miller, or miss mckency or both. >> good evening, my name is julie mckency and my husband, ken miller and i live and have owned our home at 1266th avenue for 22 and a half years. and we lived next door to the subject property. we completely support the intent to complete the much needed home improvements and to remodel and however we are extremely concerned about the negative impacts that this project in its current form will have on our home and our quality of life. and we have done our own remodel to the back of our home in 2002, bringing in a lot of
light to our home, while maintaining the garden space and being mindful of the light and practice vacy to our neighbors and at least three homes have been remodeled as well and all having been respectful of the neighbors and of the open mid block community space. we had only hoped for the same consideration from the laytons. and i have here, an overview of our block. overhead? >> and as you can see, there is abundant greenry. and there are a few one story sheds across from. where the laytons are and no other home, tends anywhere near as much as this proposed project does. and the main reason that we are here though, tonight is before you, is as a result of the major procedural error that was made to prior to and at our dr
hearing, on april 4th, 2014. and as you heard when the neighbor began to speak, and which had been verified that she would have three minutes before prior to the hearing, and by the kristine and the project planner. she was cut off by david lindsey and told that she was part of the dr team and could not speak. and she was silenced and was told that she could speak during the our rebuttal time and as a result, our architect glen was going to spend, showing important drawings of our, and the aoe cret determination that she was to be considered as part of the dr party, and in fact we were told
that the opposite by kristine, that cythia would have three minutes to speak and we would have all of our time and this related in our case not being fairly heard and that she was completely shut down and this is not just and this is wrong, she was mentioned as joining in or supporting our dr but that is true of many of the other neighbors as well. our attorney represented us and not cythia, and our architect you ares represented us, and the dr application explained our position and not hers and she did not contribute to the text of the dr application, and she is not listed as an applicant, nor did she sign it, and she is not listed on the signature page. >> she did not paid as part of the fee and she is not listed on the bank, and as a applicant. >> why is she listed as a requestor on the planning department. and the april 17th, analysis this was a error and the point
is that we were robbed of a fair hearing. and we would also like to demonstrate the inaccurate nature of the plans that we received in the last one and a half years. beginning with the may, 2013, preapp meeting raised, the neighbors raised many concerns, including the addition of an inlaw unit which was denied and promised and the plans to review never happened. earl in june, four years to get input without the benefit of seeing the detailed plans and we could not give the input as a result. and finally as it was out of town for four months and invited us over to show us the plans at their home and they were hard to read and not allowed to take them home or study them, three weeks later we received the 311 public notification, the plans were vague and dimensions were left out and our concerns had not been addressed at all.
it is described as a two-foot rear extension. with a depth of 50 feet, although it was described as 53 feet on the preapp notice. >> we engaged in an attorney, finally and, we asked accurate plans, and they were delayed until october 31st. and there was one meeting with the laytons before the dr hearing or excuse me, application for hearing. and it was fruitless and they refused to include any of ours or consider our modifications, and we proceeded with filing for dr. amonth later, we got a request from the laytons for the architect to meet and these negotiations looked promising at first, but unfortunately they fell through, when we asked for some different kinds of modifications which were actually less than what we had originally asked for. and they thought that we were
asking for more. where i think that for the very reasonable and minor modifications that would relieve a substantial about of shadow and boxing into your home and amounts to only 2400 square feet. that are being added to the pro-yekt and the sponsor is continued to add only two feet to the rear of the existing home but this is simply not true, here is the picture that you saw before, the overhead please? >> here is the back, the property and the laytons and cynthia and here is the two-foot extension. the roof of the bedroom to be sloped so that we can get more light into the skylights and that they bring back one portion of the back wall on our
side, which is the north side, we request that it be returned for a fair and adequate notification for the public and to provide the asquai sent neighbors with the opportunity to present their concerns. >> thank you. >> we hear from the permit holders now. >> good evening, president lazarus, and commissioners. i am david silver man and i am working with the layton family who have lived at their home at 1264, 6th avenue for 28 years and their home is more than a century old and has had no significant work for decades and the purpose of the project is to add, 100 square feet at the second level, and in 116 square feet at the third level. and for a total of 226 square
feet. the void behind the garage, which is currently wasted space will be filled in in the amount of 446 square feet, and it is on the ground level, and the project will improve the home's interior functionality and the structural integrity and the seismic stability and the energy efficiency and we will not be any changes at all. the front of the house. >> the feet added will have minimum impacts on the appellants and the lshaped design of the third level was specifically designed as a good neighbor gesture to minimize the impact on the neighbors and the project is set back eight feet from the envelope allowed by the planning coated, and additional 12 feet along the shared property line with miss mckency and there miller to the north on the third level. both the project site and the appellant's houses have east
and west orientations and the shade the properties skylights and back yards that is a preexisting condition, they recently remodeled their home and place in a new skylight near the property line and notwithstanding that the laytons had no control over the placement of the skylight and the impact is minimal, because the two foot depth of the skylights themselves substantially block any light into the house. and the new addition is not as deep as the immediate neighbors, on either side. or as deep as many of the other buildings on the block. >> in particular, miss smith's house currently extends further into the mid block and open space than the permit holders, and will continue to do so, even after the proposed addition. and this is an important point, because although they made a very i am passioned argument she did not mention that her house is bigger than their house is now, and after the
the red box is here in their yard. >> and the house is not been ex-expanded in the last 28 years while the layton family owned it and in particular, the house has the same dimensions as when the appellants mckency and miller purchased the house and made the renovations, mckency and miller knew that the second level extended beyond their house when they purchased their home and they willingly chose to proceed. and they also decided that it was not important to address the issue when they remodeled their own house. the project adds only two feet to the rear of the existing, house on the second level, along the property line shared with miss mckency and mr. miller. and the bay window is set back, from miss mckency and the property line by three feet. and from inside of the house they would not be able to see the window and would not cast